`
`Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Gregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 57,063
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00612
`Patent No. 10,206,025
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S PRELIMINARY REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Factor 1: Whether the Court Will Issue a Stay Is Unknown ........................... 1
`
`Factors 2 and 5: Petitioner Is Not a Defendant in the Apple Litigation, and
`an Early Trial in that Litigation Is Unlikely Anyway ..................................... 2
`
`Factor 3: There Has Been Little Litigation Investment ................................... 3
`
`Factor 4: Petitioner’s Stipulation Eliminates Overlap ..................................... 4
`
`Factor 6: Patent Owner’s Response to the Merits Is Weak ............................. 5
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................................ 2
`Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15 (July 2, 2021) ............................................................... 6
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (July 28, 2020) ............................................................. 7
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp.,
`1-20-cv-12193 (D. Mass.) ...................................................................................... 1
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp.,
`IPR2021-00297, Paper 16 (June 3, 2021) .............................................................. 6
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP LLC,
`IPR2019-00382, Paper 12 (Aug. 6, 2019) .............................................................. 7
`Dish Network v. Broadband iTV,
`IPR2020-01267, Paper 15 (Jan. 21, 2021) ............................................................. 3
`Dolby Labs. v. Intertrust Tech.,
`IPR2020-00665, Paper 11 (Feb. 16, 2021) .........................................................3, 5
`Facebook v. Onstream Media,
`IPR2020-01525, Paper 11 (April 5, 2021) ............................................................. 2
`Google Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00846, Paper 9 (Oct. 21, 2020) ............................................................... 6
`Google v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2020-00441, Paper 13 (July 17, 2020) ............................................................. 3
`In re Apple,
`21-147 (Fed. Cir.) ................................................................................................... 4
`Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio,
`3-21-cv-01177 (S.D. Cal.) ...................................................................................... 1
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc.,
`4-21-cv-03854 (N.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................... 1
`Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc.,
`2-21-cv-00203 (D. Utah) ........................................................................................ 1
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) (informative) ..................................2, 6
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`1003 Declaration of Tim A. Williams
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Tim A. Williams
`
`1005 Declaration of John G. Casali
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of John G. Casali
`
`1007
`
`PCT/US2009/039754
`
`1008 RESERVED
`
`1009 RESERVED
`
`1010 RESERVED
`
`1011 RESERVED
`
`1012 RESERVED
`
`1013
`
`PCT Publication No. WO2009/126614A1
`
`1014 RESERVED
`
`1015 RESERVED
`
`1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0165875 (“Rezvani-875”)
`
`1017 U.S. Patent No. 6,856,690 (“Skulley”)
`
`1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0142693
`
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 7,069,452 (“Hind”)
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`1020 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0076489
`
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,457,649
`
`1022 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0223604
`
`1023 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0253579
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,627,289
`
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 5,889,870
`
`1026 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0031475 (“Goldstein”)
`
`1027
`
`IEEE Std. 315, Graphic Symbols for Electrical and Electronic Diagrams
`(1975) (Reaffirmed 1993)
`
`1028 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0141950
`
`1029 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0083331
`
`1030 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0206776
`
`1031 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0286466
`
`1032 RESERVED
`
`1033 U.S. Patent No. 5,761,298 (“Davis”)
`
`1034 U.S. Patent No. 5,960,094
`
`1035 U.S. Patent No. 6,295,366
`
`1036 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0110017
`
`1037 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0068653
`
`1038 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0113689
`
`1039 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0037818
`
`1040 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210752
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`1041 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0149261
`
`1042 U.S. Patent No. 8,180,078
`
`1043 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0058313
`
`1044 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0147629
`
`1045 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0078812
`
`1046 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0166005
`
`1047 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0065805
`
`1048
`
`Internet Archive of
`http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EV
`ENT&product=headphones_audio_subcategory (Nov. 1, 2007)
`
`1049 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0092098
`
`1050 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0226094
`
`1051 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0018810
`
`1052 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0258613
`
`1053 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0046869
`
`1054 RESERVED
`
`1055 Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661-ADA (D.I. 1) (Complaint &
`Exs. A-G) (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2020)
`
`1056 RESERVED
`
`1057 Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent Circumstances
`Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (Mar. 13, 2020)
`
`1058
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (Apr.
`15, 2020)
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (May
`8, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (June
`18, 2020)
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J. Garcia) (July
`2, 2020)
`
`Seventh Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Aug. 6, 2020)
`
`Eighth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Sept. 21, 2020)
`
`1064 Ninth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Oct. 14, 2020)
`
`1065
`
`Tenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Nov. 18, 2020)
`
`1066 RESERVED
`
`1067 RESERVED
`
`1068 RESERVED
`
`1069 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal, Lex
`Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com (last checked March 3, 2021)
`
`1070 Open Patent Matters Before J. Albright (W.D. Tex.) Not on Appeal
`Filed Before July 22, 2020, Lex Machina, https://law.lexmachina.com
`(last checked March 3, 2021)
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`1071
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-
`trial-dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/ (July 24, 2020)
`(last checked Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`1072 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1073 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a JLab Audio, 6:20-cv-
`00662-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1074 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6:20-cv-00663-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1075 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6:20-cv-00664-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 3, 2021)
`
`1076
`
`Skrainer, S. F., Royster, L.H., Berger, E.H., & Pearson, R. G. “Do
`Personal Radio Headsets Provide Hearing Protection,” Sound and
`Vibration, 19(5) (1985), 16-19
`
`1077 Casali, J. G. & Park, M. Y., “Attenuation performance of four hearing
`protectors under dynamic movement and different user fitting
`conditions,” Human Factors (1990)
`
`1078 U.S. Patent No. 7,564,989
`
`1079 RESERVED
`
`1080 Civil Docket, MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku, Inc., 6:18-cv-00308-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`1081 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0123171
`
`1082 Agreed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics et al., 6:20-cv-
`00663, -00664, -00665 (D.I. 28) (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)
`
`1083 U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`
`1084
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,571,544
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`
`1085 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1086
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,049,502
`
`1087 U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1088
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,438,987
`
`1089 U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1090
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,497,535
`
`1091 U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1092
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,959
`
`1093 U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1094
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,986,325
`
`1095 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1096
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`1097 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0136446 (“Rezvani-446”)
`
`1098 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0229014 (“Harada”)
`
`1099
`
`PCT/KR2006/000922 (PCT Publication No. WO 2006/098584A1)
`(“Oh”)
`
`1100 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165720
`
`1101 U.S. Patent No. 7,072,686 (“Schrager”)
`
`1102 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0160820
`
`1103 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0197956
`
`1104 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133734
`
`1105 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0204168
`
`- ix -
`
`
`
`
`
`1106 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0073522
`
`1107 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0052144
`
`1108 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0163358
`
`1109 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0217827
`
`1110 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0016205
`
`1111 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0133551
`
`1112 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0298613
`
`1113 U.S. Patent No. 4,456,795
`
`1114 U.S. Patent No. 5,998,275
`
`1115 U.S. Patent No. 6,499,129
`
`1116 U.S. Patent No. 7,039,944
`
`1117 U.S. Patent No. 7,289,775
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`Twelfth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Jan. 7, 2021)
`
`Thirteenth Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic (C.J.
`Garcia) (Feb. 2, 2021)
`
`1120
`
`Proposed Scheduling Order, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661, -
`00662 (D.I. 24) (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2021)
`1121 Civil Docket, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., 6:20-cv-00665-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.) (as of March 1, 2021)
`1122 Civil Docket, Apple Inc. v. Koss Corp., 4-20-cv-05504-JST (N.D. Cal.)
`(as of March 1, 2021)
`1123 Civil Docket, Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., 1-20-cv-12193-RGS (D. Mass.)
`(as of March 1, 2021)
`
`- x -
`
`
`
`1125
`
`1124 Civil Docket, VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 1:19-cv-00977-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.) (as of March 1, 2021)
`Plaintiff Koss Corporation’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions,
`Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)
`1126 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0098878
`1127 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,809
`1128 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0167187
`1129 Complaint, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., 6-20-cv-00665 (W.D. Tex.)
`(filed July 23, 2020)
`1130 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0068610
`1131 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0201585
`1132 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0073460
`1133 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0100274
`1134 U.S. Patent No. 7,065,342
`1135 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0041697
`1136 Declaration of Nathan R. Speed in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`1137 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., 6-20-cv-
`00661 (D.I. 55) (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2021)
`1138 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., 6-20-
`cv-00664 (D.I. 38) (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021)
`1139 Order Granting Motion to Transfer, Koss Corp. v. Plantronics, Inc., 6-
`20-cv-00663 (D.I. 45) (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2021)
`1140 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Koss Corp. v. PEAG LLC d/b/a
`JLab Audio, 6-20-cv-00662 (D.I. 45) (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2021)
`
`- xi -
`
`
`
`
`
`When Bose filed its Petition, Patent Owner (“PO”) had five suits pending in
`
`the WDTX involving the ’025 Patent. Since then, four of the five suits were
`
`dismissed or transferred, including PO’s suit against Bose. Exs. 1137-1140. Those
`
`four suits are now pending in different district courts with no trial date set for any
`
`of them. See generally Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, 2:21-cv-00203 (D. Utah); Koss
`
`Corp. v. Plantronics, 4:21-cv-03854 (N.D. Cal.); Koss Corp. v. PEAG d/b/a JLab
`
`Audio, 3:21-cv-01177 (S.D. Cal.); Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., 1:20-cv-12193 (D.
`
`Mass.). Only PO’s suit against Apple remains in WDTX.
`
`PO’s Fintiv arguments ignore three of its original suits—Skullcandy, JLab,
`
`and Plantronics—and focus on PO’s WDTX suits against Bose and Apple. As
`
`noted above, however, the Bose suit has now been dismissed and PO’s arguments
`
`based on it have been mooted. Ex. 1137. The lone remaining suit with a scheduled
`
`trial is the Apple Litigation, and that suit—involving a party unrelated to Bose—
`
`does not warrant discretionarily denying Bose’s meritorious petition.
`
`1.
`
`Factor 1: Whether the Court Will Issue a Stay Is Unknown
`
`PO argues Factor 1 weighs in favor of discretionary denial because Bose did
`
`not represent it would seek a stay if a trial is instituted. POPR, 8-10. Bose hereby
`
`represents it will seek a stay of its non-infringement declaratory judgment action
`
`pending in the District of Massachusetts if/when Koss counterclaims for
`
`infringement and Bose asserts patent invalidity as an affirmative defense.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`As for Apple, Bose has no control over whether Apple will seek a stay, but
`
`the Board has not required parties to represent they will seek a stay for Factor 1 to
`
`be neutral. Rather, following Sand Revolution II1, the Board finds Factor 1 neutral
`
`absent “specific evidence” Judge Albright will deny a stay motion. Facebook v.
`
`Onstream Media, IPR2020-01525, Paper 11, 9-10 (April 5, 2021); DISH Network
`
`v. Broadband iTV, IPR2020-01267, Paper 15, 12–14 (Jan. 21, 2021).
`
`2.
`
`Factors 2 and 5: Petitioner Is Not a Defendant in the Apple
`Litigation, and an Early Trial in that Litigation Is Unlikely Anyway
`
`PO’s Factor 2 arguments for the now-dismissed Bose Litigation are moot.
`
`As for Bose’s pending declaratory judgment action, no trial has been scheduled,
`
`which “weighs significantly against” the Board exercising its discretion to deny
`
`institution. Google v. Uniloc 2017, IPR2020-00441, Paper 13, 35 (July 17, 2020).
`
`PO’s Factor 2 arguments thus hinge on the Apple Litigation’s trial date. But
`
`Bose is not a party to the Apple Litigation, and thus whatever weight Factor 2 is
`
`given in view of Apple’s trial date should be offset by Factor 5. Dolby Labs. v.
`
`Intertrust Tech., IPR2020-00665, Paper 11, 13-14 (Feb. 16, 2021) (“Dolby”)
`
`(“Factors 2 and 5 are interrelated” where the challenged patent is involved in
`
`different actions with different parties and different trial dates.). As Fintiv made
`
`clear: “If a petitioner,” like Bose, “is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier court
`
`proceeding, the Board has weighed this fact against exercising discretion to deny
`
`1 IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, (June 16, 2020) (informative).
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`institution.” IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 13-14 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`Indeed, citing Fintiv, the Board has held that a pre-FWD trial involving a
`
`defendant different than the petitioner did not favor discretionary denial under
`
`Factor 2 even though the petitioner had identified the defendant as a real party-in-
`
`interest. Dolby, 15-16.
`
`If considered at all, Apple’s trial does not favor discretionary denial given
`
`the uncertainty surrounding it. Although the district court denied Apple’s transfer
`
`motion, Apple’s mandamus petition is pending. In re Apple, 21-147 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`Should the petition be granted, Apple’s trial date becomes moot. Even if it is
`
`denied, assuming the trial will go forward as scheduled is still speculative.
`
`3.
`
`Factor 3: There Has Been Little Litigation Investment
`
`PO’s arguments with respect to the Bose Litigation in WDTX are moot, and
`
`there has been no investment in the pending declaratory judgment action in
`
`Massachusetts as PO has not yet answered the declaratory judgment complaint.
`
`The parties in the Apple Litigation have invested in the case but much work
`
`remains after the institution deadline herein. For example, dispositive motions are
`
`not due until four months after institution. Ex. 1082, 4; Dolby, 19 (instituting trial
`
`where dispositive motions were due three months after institution).
`
`As part of the Board’s “holistic analysis,” the investment by Apple and PO
`
`in their suit must also be considered in view of Bose’s diligence. Bose filed its
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`petition within a month of learning which claims PO was asserting. Pet., 93-94.
`
`Such diligence strongly mitigates against Apple’s and PO’s investment in their
`
`separate suit. Dolby, 20 (filing within five months of infringement contentions
`
`“mitigates against the investment of the parties” in multiple separate suits).
`
`4.
`
`Factor 4: Petitioner’s Stipulation Eliminates Overlap
`
`PO argues there is “complete overlap” between the issues before the Board
`
`and those presented in the Bose Litigation. POPR, 17. This argument fails.
`
`First, the Bose Litigation is no more. What (if any) invalidity contentions
`
`Bose will use in its DJ action in Massachusetts is pure speculation at this point as
`
`the only issue pending is non-infringement, which the Board does not address.
`
`Second, even if invalidity later becomes an issue in the DJ action, Bose has
`
`provided a stipulation (Ex. 2021) that eliminates “complete overlap” between the
`
`two forums. PO tries to minimize Bose’s stipulation by speculating Bose might re-
`
`classify references as primary or secondary. PO’s speculation is untrue.
`
`Regardless, a stipulation not to pursue the IPR grounds in district court favors
`
`institution (Sand Revolution II, 11-12), and Bose goes further, agreeing not to rely
`
`on the Petition’s primary references as primary references in any invalidity ground.
`
`Bose Corp. v. Koss Corp., IPR2021-00297, Paper 16, 16 (June 3, 2021) (finding
`
`Bose’s stipulation “mitigates any overlap to some degree”); Apple v. Koss Corp.,
`
`IPR2021-00381, Paper 15, 20-21 (July 2, 2021) (citing similar stipulations).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, PO did not argue Factor 4 weighs against institution due to overlap
`
`with the Apple Litigation and cannot raise that new argument in its sur-reply.
`
`Regardless, the Board should not “preclude [Bose] from raising its challenges here
`
`based on the speculation that unrelated parties in litigation might later raise those
`
`same challenges.” Google v. Parus, IPR2020-00846, Paper 9, 20 (Oct. 21, 2020).
`
`5.
`
`Factor 6: Patent Owner’s Response to the Merits Is Weak
`
`PO says the Petition’s merits are “not strong,” yet barely discusses them.
`
`PPOR, 22. PO principally argues the Petition should be discretionarily denied
`
`under § 325(d) because one set of grounds combines a reference cited in an IDS
`
`during prosecution (Rezvani-875) with multiple references never cited before. Yet,
`
`the Office neither discussed nor applied Rezavani-875 (Pet., 96-97), and the Board
`
`has “consistently held that a reference that was neither applied against the claims
`
`nor discussed by the examiner, does not weigh in favor of exercising our discretion
`
`under § 325(d).” Bowtech v. MCP, IPR2019-00382, Paper 12, 12 (Aug. 6, 2019).
`
`Moreover, because the Petition otherwise meets the statutory threshold for
`
`institution and the Board has already instituted a trial on a related patent (IPR2021-
`
`00297) “it would be inefficient to discretionarily deny institution.” Apple v. Seven
`
`Networks, IPR2020-00235, Paper 10, 17 (July 28, 2020).
`
`Date:
`July 9, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Michael N. Rader/
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146, Counsel for Petitioner
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`I certify that on July 9, 2021, I will cause a copy of the foregoing document,
`
`including any exhibits filed therewith, to be served via electronic mail, as
`
`previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`Mark G. Knedeisen
`Ragae M. Ghabrial
`Michelle Weaver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`ragae.ghabrial@klgates.com
`michelle.weaver@klgates.com
`
`/MacAulay Rush /
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`